In the wake of the Aaron Swartz suicide, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was expected to ask tough questions about the way U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz’s office handled the case. Swartz, a 26-year-old Internet activist, ...

If Robert L. Ullmann’s nomination to the Superior Court is rejected, it will have nothing to do with James “Whitey” Bulger, says Governor’s Councilor Terrence W. Kennedy. Ullmann faced an unusually difficult hearing last week, in which he was asked ...

Despite rumors to the contrary, the story is far from over with respect to James “Whitey” Bulger and the issue of immunity. U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled earlier this month that the defense team of J.W. Carney ...

Where a defendant (1) was indicted and tried for bank burglary and (2) following his conviction, the trial judge applied a sentencing guideline intended for cases of robbery, rather than the burglary guideline the defendant proposed, the judge erred by selecting which guideline to apply on the basis of conduct not alleged in the indictment.

Where a plaintiff has moved to strike the defendants’ counterclaims and affirmative defenses, the counterclaims and defenses are all either meritless or barred by res judicata, so the motion must be allowed.

Where the defendant told a Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent that he was born in Puerto Rico, this statement by itself is not enough to prove that the defendant falsely claimed to be a United States citizen.

Where a Department of Labor Relations (DLR) Hearing Officer found that the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) had violated state labor law when, through gross negligence, it failed to submit to the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System (MTRS) a signed memorandum of agreement amending a collective bargaining agreement so that the MTRS could consider a teacher’s prior extended longevity buyout payments to be regular compensation for purposes of calculating his retirement payments, that finding should be affirmed despite the MTA’s arguments that (1) the Hearing Officer failed to commence the running of the six-month statute of limitations at the time the teacher actually became aware of the harm to him and when a reasonable person would have become so aware; (2) the Hearing Officer misapplied the gross negligence standard to the alleged actions of the MTA; and (3) the Hearing Officer misapplied the burden of proof, inferring wrongdoing by the MTA in the absence of evidence.